77 comments:

"In the interview, according to the latest portions, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden the same day, he had declared the attack an act of terror."

-- It's almost like when Crowley admitted Romney was right, she was not lying.

When asked in interview whether it was a terrorist attack he said he didn't know who carried it out but suspected it was planned..

In the Rose Garden he called it an act of terror.

I don't see the inconsistency.

As has been gone over many times, Romney's mistake at the debate was to insist that Obama did not say what he had in fact said. If Romney had not made that factual mistake but had instead launched a broader attack on the administration's handling of the situation he would not have been corrected.

He is going down over this, but the question remains at which party's hands it will happen.

If he wins, the Republican's will be relentless. If he loses, the Dems will be relentless in order to paint the election as a referendum on Obama's action in response to Benghazi. This storyline will chip away at notion of Romney's election being about Democrat/Liberal policies and ideology.

Now why would the selectively release parts of that interview after the debate and then the rest of it much later just before the election?

Keep in mind that this was 60 minutes, which was essentially the same organization that released that bogus TANG letter 8 years ago, in an apparent attempt to sway the election towards the Democratic candidate.

Should we be surprised that they are still carrying water for the Dems? I, for one, am not. I think that I have watched all of maybe 3 segments in the last 8 years just for that reason, that they cannot help themselves from this sort of partisan and philosophic sort of programming.

To be somewhat fair to them, this isn't new. That was why their Coors expose some decades ago was so surprising - it was surprisingly fairly even handed, as a result of the company throwing themselves completely open to the 60 minutes crew. Even back then, few on the right thought that anyone of the right would ever get a fair shot from them.

"AF said...When asked in interview whether it was a terrorist attack he said he didn't know who carried it out but suspected it was planned..

In the Rose Garden he called it an act of terror.

I don't see the inconsistency."

Because this is of course bullshit. He made no such declaration. But for arguments sake, let's pretend he did.

Why did Susan Rice go on TV the following weekend and say on five shows it was a spontaneous reaction to a vidfeo. Why did Hillary say this. Why did Jay Carney say this. Why di Choom himslef say this on Letterman, The Daily SHow, The View, and at the UN?

They are all cowards, taking after their god-in-chief. His cowardice is on display as a function of his treasonous treachery shown to those Americans in Benghazi. May he rot in hell for this and anyone who knowingly support him for it.

By quietly releasing this very damning video of obama himself refusing to call the attack a terrorist attack just 1 day after the attack CBS can now say "what do you mean we were covering this up, we released it before the election!"

Further, by quietly releasing this video CBS has ensured that no MSM outfit will feel pressured to highlight the lie that obama and his minions told America (and the world at the UN) over and over and over again.

There is no other way to view the selected editing of the conversation CBS had with obama other than a full-scale effort at coordinated damage control.

Keep pushing Benghazi-gate, tin foil hat brigade! Any of you want to come out against your boy Bush and Clueless Condoleezza for neglecting to take action after receiving the Aug. 6, 2001 memo? Remember? It's the one that said that Bin Laden was determined to strike the US. Almost 3,000 dead on his watch.

Christie thinks highly of Christie, and is looking out for only himself, and, in so doing, just cost himself any shot he ever had at the Presidency.

mz said...

Keep pushing Benghazi-gate, tin foil hat brigade! Any of you want to come out against your boy Bush and Clueless Condoleezza for neglecting to take action after receiving the Aug. 6, 2001 memo? Remember? It's the one that said that Bin Laden was determined to strike the US. Almost 3,000 dead on his watch

And Willie had bin Laden offered to him on a silver platter and declined.

I heard a long interview with Christie yesterday, in which he reiterated a half dozen times that he still endorsed Romney, but that he felt he did the right thing in cooperating with Obama in the wake of the hurricane.

Remember? It's the one that said that Bin Laden was determined to strike the US.

Gee, Bin Laden wanted to hit the US. That's really obvious. Did the briefing said anything about hijacking planes and flying them into buildings? No? Was there anything actionable in that briefing, something that would give the military and law enforcement guidance on what to look for? No? Then what should've Bush done on such information?

This Christie thing has become a bit interesting. Apparently Romney asked Christie to campaign with him in PA and Christie declined.

It seems Romney really has managed to piss Christie off.

Romney appears to be one of the most personally disliked people in politics. Romney's big swinging dick attitude doesn't seem to sit well with his fellow Republicans."

What doesn't sit well is Christie's increasingly obvious snit about not getting chosen as VP. It is significant that a Romney insider told the press that Christie is miffed he was not chosen and Ryan was.

I noticed the GOP convention speech by Christie was all about himself and suspected his nose was out of joint.

Christie is burning his bridges with the GOP which has considered him far more squishy than Romney ever was.

He may have thought Obama would win after Sandy. I think he's wrong. He has burned his bridges with Romney at the worst possible time. All politicians, with the possible exception of Romney, are narcissists. Christie is a prominent example.

There is no equivalence. Nothing at all similar. And yet you evoke it as a crushing trump. This is a common thing that liberals as a general argumentative group tend to do. The thing that you're doing now is discussed at length in books. Everybody here sees it all the time, and yet, here you are piping up and doing it again. Text book fashion. You are making a comparison where no possible comparison exists and you believe that is a cogent argument. It just isn't. And we look at that guy making that style of fallacious argument again and we think to ourselves Jesus Christ, I didn't realize they even have debate clubs in middle school.

Please don't insist on an explanation on how different those situations are. That would be like pouring water onto the ground. Explaining again how those situations are different. It's like two things happening on different planets in different centuries.

Stay stuck. And then wonder later what went wrong, it must be something unseen.

This part of the controversy is almost getting into a semantic game. Did he call it a terrorist act or an act of terror, when the real issue is not procviding adequate security, nor coming up with an adequate response to why calls for help weren't heeded. Plus his administration then going on the network news going out of their way not to call it a terrorist act.

But let's at least stipulate something. This interviewer seems to be coming to the same conclusion that Romney did in the second debate, namely that he didn't declare it a terrorist act. And Obama AGREES with the assertion by saying right.So, Inga and Ritmo and others of your ilk. Leave aside romneys assertion that Obama didn't call it aTerrorist act at the time, please explain why the reporter reached the same exact conclusion. Couldn't Obama have set the reporter straight at any point in the interview saying , "No, I called it an act of terrorism at the time"?Why didn't he? And why then are we shocked if Mitt Romney comes to the same conclusion as this reporter?Clearly if the media is coming to a conclusion about what Obama may or may not have said, the perhapsThere is a problem with the messaging.This it's not a problem with Romney misstating Obama's position. It's Obama not stating his own position adequately.

Bush receiving information something may happen, with planes, somewhere: A clear sign he should have stopped the attack.

Obama receiving word that an attack was happening, no, literally, right this second. Bullets and mortars are hitting our buildings right now: He clearly should have not done much for a few hours and went back to bed.

reasonable: "Something. It was the worst failure of civilian military leadership since Reagan allowed 241 marines to be killed in Lebanon."

Actually it was the worst failure of civilian military leadership since Clinton sent in the USS Stark into the middle of an Al Qaeda infested region and ordered the security forces on the ship not to put bullets in their guns.

Or it was the worst failure of civilian military leadership since Clinton ordered an expansion of the humanitarian relief mission without giving adequate heavy armor or air support which resulted in American men being killed in an event which Osama Bin Laden later said showed the US to be a paper tiger and emboldened him to begin planning the attack on the twin towers.

That operation began when Clinton was president and the failure of Clinton's civilian control of the military was compounded by having Jamie Gorelick erect "the wall" which expressly prohibited the sharing of information between domestic and foreign intelligence services.

Drago said...That operation began when Clinton was president and the failure of Clinton's civilian control of the military was compounded by having Jamie Gorelick erect "the wall" which expressly prohibited the sharing of information between domestic and foreign intelligence services.

But blaming 9/11 on Clinton's fecklessness is blaming Clinton for Clinton's failures.

Not sure why you can't tell the difference.

Oh, yeah: you can't even recognize that it was Democrat policies that ruined the economy in 2007, and voted for by Senator Obama.

Clue #1: check into this thing called "Cause and effect". It is so much more accurate and effective than sophistry like "it happened on his watch, even though I can't point to anything at all he did to bring it about".

Jamie Gorelick's wall of separation between civil and military intelligence prevented anyone from assembling the information in time to do anything to stop 9/11.

Jamie Gorelick was appointed by Clinton.

The Wall was implemented by Clinton's authority.

There is not getting Slick Willie off the hook for this, unless you are willfully remaining a low-information voter, willingly staying uninformed.

That is already enough to indict Clinton.

But when you add in that it was Clinton's notion to treat terrorism as a criminal act; his feckless military actions attempting to distract from his cheating on his wife by diddling a fat chick his daughter's age; and his failure to do anything about bin Laden before he moved into a top leadership role in global terror networks...well, that's 4 more nails in the coffin.

Remember, due to Gore's attempt to steal the 2000 election, the transition was delayed.

Gore's staffers delayed transition effectiveness even more with stupid immaturity like stealing all the W's off of computers.

And then the Democrats did everything they could to make the transition rougher by dragging their feet on confirming Bush's appointments in revenge for him snatching victory from Gore's grasp.

So you can't even say what you think Bush could have done with the hopelessly vague information he had at the time, but you are willing to ignore all these overwhelming Democrat impositions on the circumstance to blame W.

But blaming 9/11 on Clinton's fecklessness is blaming Clinton for Clinton's failures.

Not sure why you can't tell the difference.

Oh, yeah: you can't even recognize that it was Democrat policies that ruined the economy in 2007, and voted for by Senator Obama.

Clue #1: check into this thing called "Cause and effect". It is so much more accurate and effective than sophistry like "it happened on his watch, even though I can't point to anything at all he did to bring it about".

Jamie Gorelick's wall of separation between civil and military intelligence prevented anyone from assembling the information in time to do anything to stop 9/11.

Jamie Gorelick was appointed by Clinton.

The Wall was implemented by Clinton's authority.

There is not getting Slick Willie off the hook for this, unless you are willfully remaining a low-information voter, willingly staying uninformed.

That is already enough to indict Clinton.

But when you add in that it was Clinton's notion to treat terrorism as a criminal act; his feckless military actions attempting to distract from his cheating on his wife by diddling a fat chick his daughter's age; and his failure to do anything about bin Laden before he moved into a top leadership role in global terror networks...well, that's 4 more nails in the coffin.

Remember, due to Gore's attempt to steal the 2000 election, the transition was delayed.

Gore's staffers delayed transition effectiveness even more with stupid immaturity like stealing all the W's off of computers.

And then the Democrats did everything they could to make the transition rougher by dragging their feet on confirming Bush's appointments in revenge for him snatching victory from Gore's grasp.

So you can't even say what you think Bush could have done with the hopelessly vague information he had at the time, but you are willing to ignore all these overwhelming Democrat impositions on the circumstance to blame W.

Someone is feeling a little unhinged. Don't worry, just lie back and think of England, the election will be over soon.

Sigh. Sadly AA's post speaks for itself. That particular A is far too big for this particular CY. Personally, I think someone(s) was finally overcome by a guilty conscience, and belatedly but reluctantly did the right thing.

But don't worry, they will be crowing about their journalistic principles to anyone who will listen at the next midtown cocktail party they attend.

Leftards bringing up the same talking point:mz: "It's the one that said that Bin Laden was determined to strike the US."

When would they attack us. Where? How? Having a statement of intent but no details is like getting a notice that criminals are intent on committing crimes! Well go out and crack the case, encyclopedia brown!Terrorists determined to attack us! Considering the size of the world and the number of targets in the world and the number of days in the year and the number of hours in a day it MIT be nice to provide ONE IOTA OF ACTIONSBLE INTELIGENCE, jackass!Absent that, why do you have? I would think the idea that Al Qaeda is determined to attack us, would bea given, even now. If tomorrow, a report came out that said "al Qaeda determined to attack us" my response would be. "And?" Tanks for stating the obvious. And I suppose next you'll say that the rain is wet.

This reminds me of slavery. What mental gymnastics did the slaveholders have to go through, while having sex with the female slaves, to think of these people as "sub-human"?

It's the same damn thing here. It's OK to lie, since we have the special privileges on our side. No one else can think for themselves, so we will help them to draw conclusions. A snip here, an omission there.

A distortion, a misrepresentation. These things are OK. We are all on the same team.

Herb said...I believe Drago misspoke. The incident he seems to be describing is the bombing of the USS Cole which happened in October 2000 while Clinton was President.

So, under Reagan 241 marines are allowed to die in Lebanon and another 39 sailors die on the USS Stark. Under Bush II 3,000 civilians are allowed to die and another 3,000 military personal are killed in a pointless war in Iraq. And then in Libya, 4 US personnel are killed, some of whom were part of a CIA operation under the command of David Petraeus and it is Obama who should be impeached?

The action of CBS here is simply astonishing. They puposely withheld the most relevant information on the question that was the principal election issue at the time. And, they relesed the edited follow up question with an answer that supported Obama. It could not have been accidental. And, the hidden question actually was not only that Obama had not called it terrorism, but that he had went to great lengths to avoid calling it terrorism and Obama said "right."

I think Ann is wrong about the motivation to release it now. They released it in a very quiet way hoping it would not be noticed and knowing if it was noticed, it was too late to have an impact in the election. And they had to release it prior to the election to protect themselves from charges of a complete cover up.

Below is a link to an article that the MSM essentially would be gone by the next presidential election. I think that is largely true.

jr565 said...Leftards bringing up the same talking point:mz: "It's the one that said that Bin Laden was determined to strike the US."

When would they attack us. Where? How? Having a statement of intent but no details is like getting a notice that criminals are intent on committing crimes! Well go out and crack the case, encyclopedia brown!Terrorists determined to attack us! Considering the size of the world and the number of targets in the world and the number of days in the year and the number of hours in a day it MIT be nice to provide ONE IOTA OF ACTIONSBLE INTELIGENCE, jackass!Absent that, why do you have? I would think the idea that Al Qaeda is determined to attack us, would bea given, even now. If tomorrow, a report came out that said "al Qaeda determined to attack us" my response would be. "And?" Tanks for stating the obvious. And I suppose next you'll say that the rain is wet.

These are just pathetic excuses for Bush's failure, which he will be remembered for even after his financial collapse is forgotten. If Obama wins tomorrow, it won't be the media's fault, it will be because people remember what a monumental fuckup Bush was.

why? Onama has been blaming Bush for all of his problems. Did BUsh not inherit Clinton's Mid East Policy?He, on his very first day on the job, was given an Iraq that had been sanctioned and contained, and who's containment was in free fall.And the US'S cole had been attacked with zero response from Clinton. Oh, and Osama declared a fatwas against us because of our Iraq policy. Specifically because we had feet on the ground in Saudi Arabia, to assist in our deployment in Iraq. Ad OBL took affront at that and declared death to America.Bush was the recipient of the blowback of that policy.

Now in the last case, I'm not blaming Clinton for what OBL did. That is the purview of the left. Remember the canard, about how they hate us for our policies, and we are the reason they are becoming terrorists? Well, alright then, using that logic, OBL hated us because of our Iraq policies, so Clinton is responsible for the attack on 911, and not Bush since OBL was responding to Clinton's policy and not Bush's.Only I won't go there. Clinton's need to contain Iraq dictated that we put feet on the ground in SA. Fuck OBL if he thinks that entitles him to attack us. If that policy was in our interest, then who cares if its not in OBL's interest or it angers him,. Is he the leader of a country we are negotiating a treaty with, or just some Guy with an agenda. We are not beholden to him. Nor are we beholden to murderers who get offended that someone in the world makes a movie critical of the prophet and feel that entitles them to murder.So, am I saying Clinton is responsible for 9/11? No. OBL is. But did OBL at because of Zclinton's policies? maybe. But does that make the policy wrong? not in my book.

But if you are going to put all blame on Bush, let's remember that he too I herited the world left to. Him by Clinton. And that world had plenty of problems.

These are just pathetic excuses for Bush's failure, which he will be remembered for even after his financial collapse is forgotten. If Obama wins tomorrow, it won't be the media's fault, it will be because people remember what a monumental fuck Bush was.

dude, the Bay City Rollers were relevant in the seventies. Why are still spinning those old records ?Bush derangement syndrome is so 2008. Last I heard Bush hasn't been in the White House in years, nor is he running now. So if people are still voting based on their bush derangement syndromes, why then we should probably get them up to,speed with the recent past.Fact is, Obama is the president now, and if he loses it will be because people will remember what a monumental fuck up Obama is now!(though hopefully not after tomorrow).

The downside for the legacy mediaswine is that by now everyone who is paying attention knows they have no integrity, even the Obots. They are useful idiots during the election year, but I don't think anyone believes they are honest purveyors of the news.

my neighbor's mother got paid $18735 the prior month. she been working on the computer and bought a $423000 house. All she did was get blessed and profit by the directions made clear on this web page http://www.taz3.com

mz said...Keep pushing Benghazi-gate, tin foil hat brigade! Any of you want to come out against your boy Bush and Clueless Condoleezza for neglecting to take action after receiving the Aug. 6, 2001 memo? Remember? It's the one that said that Bin Laden was determined to strike the US. Almost 3,000 dead on his watch.

Where were they going to strike mz? New York? Chicago? LA. You clowns are worse than those stupid birthers. Tower 7! A plane can't do that kind of damage? Fire can't melt steel! dope.The administration, unlike 9/11, had specific information about a specific group, at a specific time.Everything they needed to preempt the situation was known and they failed to act.

Chip S. said...Their argument seems to be that 4 is a smaller number than 241 or 3,000

No the argument is that the world is a dangerous place. By any reasonable standard Obama has done an outstanding job protecting the lives of american citizens. The is especially true when contrasted with the efforts of some of his predecessors.

No, he didn't. He said "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

That is NOT calling what happened in Benghazi a terrorist attack. That is a broad statement made by a politician fully aware of the nuances of the English language and with advisers well-schooled in CYAspeak.

That would be like a detective coming out of a scene where someone died and saying no murders would dissuade his department from getting to the bottom of what happened inside. He didn't call the dead person behind him a murder victim, he merely made broad, sweeping statement for the press.

AReasonableMan said...Chip S. said...Their argument seems to be that 4 is a smaller number than 241 or 3,000

No the argument is that the world is a dangerous place. By any reasonable standard Obama has done an outstanding job protecting the lives of american citizens. The is especially true when contrasted with the efforts of some of his predecessors.

I know. FDR is totally responsible for Pearl Harbor.Unfortunately for you Bush was in no way involved in this Benghazi fiasco.

No the argument is that the world is a dangerous place. By any reasonable standard Obama has done an outstanding job protecting the lives of american citizens. The is especially true when contrasted with the efforts of some of his predecessors.

Not sure how you got there. You seem to be mistaking correlation for causation, and the lack of attacks as being a result of some actions on the part of Obama.

The problem though is that Obama inherited an al Qaeda greatly reduced through 7 years of war being waged against it. There were months where 2 or 3 district leaders would be killed, in succession, in Iraq, during Bush's second term. They were also on the run in Afghanistan, though not as much so as in Iraq. By the time that Obama took office, their ability to wage war against us was greatly diminished.

So, what happened? Much of the al Qaeda leadership seems to have moved elsewhere, and, in particular, to the tribal areas of Pakistan. OBL by the time of his death had been rendered almost powerless as a leader, except as a figurehead, due to the difficulty that we had imposed on his communicating with anyone else in his organization.

Meanwhile though, other leadership grew up in other parts of the world, and then we had the Arab Spring, where the Administration helped push out long term rulers who had been able to keep Islamic militants somewhat under control, and, not surprisingly, and completely expectedly, Islamic militants, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, stepped in to fill the vacuum thus created in these countries. And, not surprisingly, these Islamic militants often had some connection with al Qaeda.

So, I think one could just as legitimately claim that Obama inherited a much safer world than Bush (43) did, and made it much more dangerous. Just like the 9/11/01 attacks on Bush's watch were primarily enabled by actions and inactions on the part of the Clinton Administration, the safety that you are bragging about was inherited from the Bush Administration.

You can pretend otherwise, but I think that most here would consider you to be a partisan hack to even attempt such.

This is from the briefing that said Bush was warned about the attacks on 9/11:We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.The only bit that mentions airplanes is this bit and one, it is not corroborated, TWO there is no time frame nor location assinged and THREE that is not what happened is it? Was a plane hijacked to gain the release of th blind sheikh? No, then what did Bush KNOW? Furhter the documnet says:

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

So, even though these are uncorroborated and we don't know the exact details 70 INVESTIGATIONS were going on at the time to look into the threats. 70 investigations!

Whoever keeps bringing this old talking point up should be tarred and featherd at this point. It is so tiresome to have to keep refuting retarded people. Read the freaking document you turd and not the headline of the document. It refutes your talking point.

An act of terror is not necessarily a terrorist act. TErrorism requires premeditation and planning. A riot that gets out of control is not a terrorist act. If he called it an act of terrorism then he wouldn't have to say, when being told that he went out of his way NOT to call it terrorism that they are still looking into the issue.

Note, the CBS interview took place RIGHT after Obama's rose garden speech.For those who speak English and can parse sentences, what does this mean?

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

It sounds to me like the reporter is noting a lack of the use of the word Terrorism in the speak (from that morning). Clearly he did not hear something that people like Inga say he said. Why is that? And what is Obama's response?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

That sounds, AGAIN, like someone saying it's too earlyt to tell how this came about and who was involved. Which is suggesting that he is NOT calling it terrorism (because its too early to tell).If you parse these sentences how on earth is Obama caling it a terrorist attack. Remember, terrorism requires that it is preplanned. An act of terror is not necessarily a terrorist act. And the reporter is under the assumption that he didn't call it terorrism and when asked if he is calling it terrorism Obama says "it's too early to say".